Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has asked Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to step in and reassign his case after Justice Binta Nyako recused himself from his trial.
Kanu, in a letter dated February 20, 2025, and obtained by our correspondent on Wednesday, appealed to the CJN to direct the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to transfer his case to another judge with the requisite jurisdiction.
His lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, stated that Justice Nyako had recused herself from the case on September 24, 2024, following Kanu’s request on grounds of alleged bias.
The Chief Judge, however, returned the case back to her and instructed her to continue presiding over the trial in spite of her withdrawal.
Kanu, who is facing a seven-count terrorism charge filed by the Federal Government, had rejected Justice Nyako’s continued handling of his case, insisting that she had voluntarily stepped down.
During the last court sitting on February 10, 2025, Kanu again objected to Justice Nyako’s presence, stating that he only appeared in court out of respect for the hearing notice but did not recognize her authority over the matter.
Following the standoff, Justice Nyako adjourned the trial indefinitely (sine die).
Kanu had earlier requested that the Chief Judge transfer the case to another judge in Abuja or to a court in the South-East, where the alleged offences were said to have taken place and where witnesses are located.
In his letter to the CJN, Ejimakor argued that once a judge recuses themselves from a case, they are legally barred from further proceedings on the matter.
“The principle of law is clear: once a judge recuses themselves, they are disqualified from further presiding over the case,” the letter stated.
Ejimakor accused the Chief Judge of disregarding this legal position by reassigning the case back to Justice Nyako, despite her recusal being a matter of record.
He further pointed out that the Federal High Court had received a request from the prosecution on December 5, 2024, asking for Kanu’s case to be re-listed before Justice Nyako.
The defence team opposed this move, citing the judge’s recusal and the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that questioned her impartiality.
Ejimakor noted that despite their protest, the Chief Judge neither responded to their concerns nor reassigned the case to another judge.
Ejimakor stressed that forcing a recused judge back onto a case undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
“A judge’s unilateral return to a case after recusal will undoubtedly create a public perception of partiality, eroding the much-cherished trust in the courts,” he said.
He urged the CJN to use her administrative powers to ensure that Kanu’s case is reassigned to another judge either in Abuja or in a Southeast division of the Federal High Court.
Ejimakor also revealed that Kanu had lodged a formal complaint against Justice Nyako with the National Judicial Council on January 14, 2025, which is still pending.
Citing previous judicial precedents, Ejimakor referenced the Supreme Court rulings in Okoduwa v. State (1988) and Deduwa v. Okorodudu (1976), which affirmed that judges must recuse themselves when bias is alleged, and that justice must be both done and seen to be done.
“This is not just a legal issue but a constitutional one. The right to a fair hearing under Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees that our client must be heard by an impartial tribunal,” Ejimakor added.
